A potpourri of interesting current events, new products, humor and just plain fun, so pull up a chair and stay a while.If your favorite post has disappeared out of sight, you can find it by selecting a category from the left hand side bar.

*

I am Perry Peterson, a retired auditor and tax accountant. My wife Valeta and I live along the front range of the beautiful Colorado Rocky Mountains.

Please note: some of the links in older postings on this website may have expired by the time you see them.

c

November 30, 2006

Camera vendors and consumer electronics retailers sell digital cameras as if the pixel count -- the number of pixels a camera's electronics can capture -- is the most important measure of quality.

I'm here to tell you that pixel count has become unimportant almost to the point of irrelevance. Megapixels don't matter anymore.

According to the article, the standard megapixel count is just over 10.

Who needs 10 megapixels? Well, maybe a professional photographer specializing in special effects or someone wanting to blow up photos to wall mural size.

In an effort to convince you that your camera is obsolete and you need to buy a new one, camera vendors keep harping on the more-megapixels-are-better myth.

Their message isn't completely false. In fact, older cameras are obsolete, and if you own one, you do need a new one -- but not necessarily one with maximum megapixels.

Each amateur photographer has a pixel count "sweet spot" that best suits his photography style and abilities.

For most people, that's somewhere in the 4-to-6-megapixel range.

Above that, however, increasing the number of pixels generally reduces the quality of pictures.

I don’t profess to be a digital camera expert but the Computer World article reinforces my long held belief that the emphasis on megapixels has been overblown for the past several years.

The 10X optical zoom was more important to me than the 6.1 megapixels when deciding to buy the EasyShare Z650 shown above. I have the Z650 set to shoot at 4 megapixels and that's really more than I need.

Many have voiced fears of the effects of low level microwave radiation emitted from mobile phones and wireless computers.

This radiation is being taken more seriously in Britain as reported here.

Parents and teachers are forcing some schools to dismantle wireless computer networks amid fears that they could damage children’s health.

More schools are putting transmitters in classrooms to give pupils wireless access from laptops to the school computer network and the internet.

But many parents and some scientists fear that low levels of microwave radiation emitted by the transmitters could be harmful, causing loss of concentration, headaches, fatigue, memory and behavioral problems and possibly cancer in the long term. Scientific evidence is inconclusive, but some researchers think that children are vulnerable because of their thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.

Are they overreacting in the UK or are we in denial of the negative effects of radiation from wireless devices?

November 29, 2006

A man owned a small ranch in Wyoming. The Wyoming Wage & Hour Dept claimed he was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an agent out to interview him.

"I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them," demanded the agent.

"Well," replied the rancher, "There's my ranch hand who's been with me for 3 years. I pay him $600 a week plus free room and board.

The cook has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $500 per week plus free room and board.

Then there's the half-wit who works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes about $10 per week, pays his own room and board and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night."